' A suit was brought by the respondent Mir Zaman seeking to preempt the sale of 31 kanals and 11 marlas made in favour of the petitioner-vendee Muhammad Feroze on the basis of rights of tenancy which was, however, dismissed by the A.C./Collector, Chakwal, with the findings that the pre-emptor could not establish his possession on the suit land. The judgment/decree of the A.C./Collector was, however, set aside in appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi who decreed the suit in favour of the respondent to the full extent of his claim of 31 kanals and 11 marlas, subject to the payment of Rs, 31,500 as consideration money. The petitioner-vendee has now come up in revision against the judgment/decree of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), dated i7-9-1984.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and referred to the record of the trial Court. The argument pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenancy of the respondent Mir Zaman over the suit land is neither established by the revenue record nor by the oral evidence led by him before the trial Court. It is contended that of the 4 field Nos. 2785 (I kanal and 15 mar/as)
2787 (5 kanals and 16 marlas), 2812-part (8 kanals 13 marlas), 2812 part (53 kanals and 8 marks) field No, 2812-part (8 hanals and 13 marlas) is recorded under the self cultivation of the petitioner for Kharif 1983 whereas field No, 2812 part (53 karals and 8 marlas) had always been recorded as in the possession of the owner. Further, that according to the evideree land before the trial Courts, the possession of the suit land, including field Nos. 2785 and 2787, had been handed over to the petitioner on payment of R. 1,000 to the brother of the respondent Mir Zaman. The learned counsel for.The petititioner has also referred to the oral evidence led by the respondent, where in P. W.
Muhammad Khan had admitted that the possession of the suit land was with the petitioner. These arguments are resisted by the learned counsel for the respondent who maintains that the decree has been correctly awarded by the learned appellate Court.
3. On referring to the record of the trial Court, I find that the evidence lead by the parties, both documentary and oral, lends support to the contention of the petitioner-vendee. Field No, 2812 part (53 kanals and 8 marlas), in fact, is recorded in possession of the owners whereas the Girdawari for Kharif 1983 is also entered in the name of the petitioner in respect of field No, 2812 part (8 kanals and 13 malas). The record also bears out that P. W. 1 appearing for the respondent Mir Zaman admitted that the possession of the suit land was with the petitioner-vendee Muhammad Feroze and the second witness examined by the respondent failed to support the case of the respondent that he was in cultivating possession of the suit land. With this evidence on record it is difficult to sustain the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner that the respondent was in cultivating possession of the suit land. In view of these circumstances, I would intervene in revision and set aside the judgment/ decree of the learned Additional Commissioner.